Lately, governance has been a bit frustrating... Delegated voting is supposed to make things easier for lazy people, but the more you delegate, the more it feels like you're just handing over the keys to a few big players. Honestly, who does token "governance" really serve? No matter how good the proposals are, in the end, it still comes down to who has more votes and who can mobilize quickly; retail investors probably just argue in the comment sections.

Some people also complain about miners/validators' income, MEV, and unfair ordering. I can understand that too. On-chain rules look transparent, but the actual experience is "you queue up, they cut in line." The same applies to governance: technically, everyone is equal, but influence is strongly related to wallet size.

Next time, I might delegate less mindlessly, and prefer to split my votes and periodically change delegates, so no single entity dominates... How do you usually choose your delegate? Based on returns, stance, or just not voting at all?